He's too deeply invested in this publicly and at home to ever admit defeat on air.

Anthony took a beating on every point, his argument looks really shallow when the opposite side really knows their shit. Anthony sounded castrated throughout that whole debate I didnt expect that.

They don't even have to really know their shit. They just have to be semi-informed on a subject.

I've said it a million times in this sub, Anthony is only a brilliant political mind, if you're a fucking moron that doesn't know shit about anything.

'But a car can be used as a weapon.....people kill people, not guns......America is different to other civilized countries'

Give me Anthony 'Dice' Clay any day over this tripe

I hope Ant mentioned 2nd amendment. Because that's checkmate right there!

He should have just said "an armed society is a polite society" then folded his arms and smiled at the camera.

Ants a fucking idiot, you only need to listen to the show directly after Obama got elected to realise what a misinformed, right wing moron he is

I didn't see this because I don't subscribe, but I DO find it hilarious that people are finally seeing that Anthony isn't the 'brilliant mind' that everyone thought him to be.

thank god, they can all finally see the balding guinea wizard behind the curtain

I thought Everitt got some points with the Garand v AR-15 discussion that he didn't deserve. The point Ant intended to make was that the features that make a rifle an 'assault weapon' are cosmetic and nothing to do with automatic fire, and nothing to do with magazine capacity (defined in other laws).

I thought Ant missed an easy one when Everitt argued that the pistol grip and barrel shroud made it easier to fire accurately, and to fire follow-up shots accurately. He's effectively arguing that there's no benefit for a lawful gun owner to have an unnecessarily accurate weapon.

Another easy one Ant missed was Everitt's hammering over and over again that New York was the third safest state as far as gun fatalities, and credited the strict changes, including the stupid 7-round limit and ban on AR-15 sales rushed through after the Connecticut school shootings, and cited FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics. However, the latest year such statistics are available are from 2013, the same year the laws were passed, whose restrictions went into effect at different points during that year.

So is Everitt arguing that NY was the third-safest gun state in 2013 because of the drop in availability of that weapon that year? There are a few problems with that. First, expectation of new law restricting their sale resulted in huge numbers of sales of AR-15s in New York, with gun dealers essentially selling all they could get their hands on, and prices jumping 200%-300%. So if anything, there were more AR-15s in New York in 2013 because of the new law.

Secondly, NY's 2013 gun death statistics were pretty much the same as 2012's or 2011's - before the restrictions Everitt credits were put in place.

NY state is very different than NY city, gun-wise. Rifle ownership and concealed-carry permits are common upstate.

Sounds as though he deserved those points, if only because Ant whiffed.

I agree. I meant that he got points that could have been countered,

Looks like Anthony's Faux News talking points let him down. Maybe now he will realize that he needs to go to Europe and see how society is supposed to be and become enlightened like Burr, who he still needs to call and apologize to for being attacked by his wife in Times Square.

apologize to for being attacked by his wife in Times Square.

I laughed.

see how society is supposed to be and become enlightened

Ah ha ha faggot. Is this a serious post?

While he's in Europe he can learn about how gun registration worked out so well for France, since the guest stumped him on that point. Hitler rolled into town and had a handy list of every gun owner.

I think he was deliberately trying to irritate someone like you.

Hitler was awesome if he was here the Stangels wouldn't be on air.

Lol going for Godwin's law as an opening argument?

Gun nuts are silly.

Pains me to say it, but TACS sucks ass. Anthony is still one of the funniest people ever but his show is boring and uninteresting. It disappoints me to say but it's true. O&J is probably better at this point because Jim has been funny lately and seems to be finding ways to bounce off of Opie. Opie still sucks but I think O&J is better than TACS.

It doesn't pain you to say it at all.

Of course it does. I want TACS to be awesome. Ant is hilarious but it's not working in this set up. It's like being stuck in traffic in a Ferrari.

When you say it, what would you rate your comfort level at? With 1 being "overjoyed" and 10 being "pain."

I'm in painful agony, I can't get out of bed it hurts so much.

Ant just needs to go back to being funny, politics really don't suit him.

The debate showed the flaw with doing a show like when Fox does it with a liberal/conservative break. It's two people talking over each other, making the SAME FUCKING POINTS you hear every time the topic comes up.

Ant seemed smart on the O&A show because he comes off like a goddamn genius when compared to Opie/Jim/Sam.

Anyone that doesn't like guns is a faggot, argument over

He really didn't though. The guy didn't even want to have a conversation towards the end. He just bulldozed through things and wouldn't address logical stuff. Like when he kept saying people didn't have AR15s/guns because they weren't legal in New York. Then just kept saying that and that Ant didn't know what he was talking about when saying "you're right, the can't buy them LEGALLY." That guy is an idiot. He debated like a child who didn't want to recognize anything from the other side regardless if ant was wrong about anything else or not.

Edit* - down votes are kind of funny considering what I said is exactly what happened toward the end. Regardless of any previous point made by either, it was just so dumb to say people don't have things because they're illegal and then just plow past it when ant kept saying legally.

i think the downvotes came because of how terribly you mangled that whole paragraph. ffs, get a subordinate clause or something.

Tss tss, who is that? Santa's brother or sumpthin?

It was mangled because I reiterated a point from a previous sentence? K.

[deleted]

I agree with your first statement. I also subscribe to TACS as back payment. That's... that's all I had...

Why would an AR be more efficient with more parts and a smaller cartridge? For Christ's sake OP swallow your pride and dislodge Mike Bloomberg's cock from your mouth.

I disagree with Anthony, but the guest was trying to berate Anthony into submission rather than having a real discussion.

there is room for discussion on guns in the US, but in trying to force Anthony to say something he doesn't think, it just became a circular argument for an hour.

Well I mean it was a debate. And Anthony being the one with lesser points in the debate was the one making it circular.

well he said weak laws in other states are the reason for illegal guns in NY. When Anthony said he thought illegal guns could come over the border the guy laughed him into submission saying guns are illegal in Mexico. Anthony tries to respond citing the drug gang violence in Mexico but the guy ignores him because it doesn't fit into his view.

again, I disagree with Anthony, but this debate was just two guys not listening to each other.

usually that's ant's tactic soooo. have we forgotten bill maher?

You can't stay up drinking and watching Columbo reruns until 6am, crawl out of bed at 3:35 and then win a debate against somebody that is prepared.

ant could use some brushing up on dishonest debate practices, moving the goalposts, straw man fallacies, gish gallop, euphemism, misnomer and twisting words, he isn't great at deciphering them in real time or utilizing them. i don't think either won or lost only because i have a learned distrust of language unlike our thread starter, they just exchanged ideas without gaining a deeper understanding of the others position.

still enjoyed hearing a hostile dissenting opinion in the compound and hope more come.

i don't think either won or lost only because i have a learned distrust of language unlike our thread starter

You leave "thread starter" alone.

You there, roland1232, may you live forever.

You there, E-rockComment, may you live forever.

Aids?

E-rockcomment, comment?

Ant was sick too

excuses.

Do you like talking when your throat is all scratchy?

This. There was a point the guy made about how our military is beloved and thus infallable so we don't need guns they protect us and Ant should have stopped him right there and said no actually many militaries in the past have gladly followed corrupt and evil regimes and human self preservation trumps all. So if Uncle Sam tells GI JOE to fire on a crowd otherwise they will die due to treason most JOEs will fire on a crowd.

Good point also military is like a mercenary force these days.

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

This is what retarded liberals don't understand because they can't look at available statistics showing that it's the gun controlled areas that have the most gun violence and crime because gun control is only about preventing good people from defending themselves; bad people will always obtain guns through illegal sale or making them on their own from parts, or even by 3D printing. Just saw an article on a $4K metal 3D printer too, so soon you can print metal guns and not a polymer AR that fires a minimum of 600 rounds.

I agree completely and I live in Australia where most guns are banned. There are still certain guns you're able to own but you're pretty much forced to keep it in a safe, so if you're into home security, you basically have to learn to fight multiple people at once or keep a variety of knives around the house and hope for the best.

That guy was full of straw men arguments. The place where Ant really fucked up was not mentioning that the whole point of the Second Amendment is for the citizens to have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government.

the whole point of the Second Amendment is for the citizens to have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Yea a couple of AR15s will sure overthrow drone strikes and tanks.
Hell even if you had unrestricted access to all weaponry you wouldn't stand a chance.

Really? Because a bunch of Arabs running around in their pajamas with AKs older than them and roadside bombs made with coffee cans and copper plates and then set off with garage door openers took the U.S. to the limit for over a decade. Even after the U.S. dropped trillions of dollars using the most cutting edge equipment available, they still ultimately lost Iraq to insurgency.

"Pfft, there's no way the Communists will win in Vietnam. Its just a bunch of ill-equipped weirdos running around in their pajamas."

40 years later, Saigon is still Ho Chi Minh City.

I always thought it was funny how people will argue that the U.S. Army is insurmountable and then argue that motivated guerrilla fighters are insurmountable depending on which country they're talking about.

The track record of motivated guerrillas looks pretty damn good. Hell, this country was founded after motivated guerrillas fucked up Great Britain.

You can't defeat an enemy with air power it still takes boots on the ground. Tanks blow up. Look at Afghanistan. If cave men can make IEDs, so can Americans.

Also, look at the Boston Bombers. Two guys brought the city to its knees. There are 13.7 million hunters in the U.S. The military (made up of our fathers, brothers, and sons) can't win a guerrilla war in Vietnam or Afghanistan. You think it can win one here?

Yeah, but it's the principle.

There's a actually a good case to be made that the point of the second amendment was to allow colonies to have "well-regulated militias," which were essential back in colonial America when there was a frontier and shit. The TEXT of the amendment itself aludes to that specifically:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Most gun nuts tend to forget about or gloss over that first clause. Which well-regulated militia is Anthony part of?

Most gun nuts tend to forget about or gloss over that first clause.

and you are glossing over the second clause. There is a reason the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." was put in the Bill of RIGHTS and not the part of the Constitution governing militias

I see the second clause. I think it should be read in the context of the first clause. Why else would the drafters have thought it important to include that little bit of preface? Were they just chit-chatting before they got to the part that actually has legal importance? None of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights have a policy statement preface like that; it isn't as though the first amendment starts with something like "because a free marketplace of ideas and unfettered public dialogue is essential to the freedom and development of a civilized society..."

The drafters must have included that first clause because they wanted it to mean something, no? I don't think they were just saying "Militias are important to the security of a free state. Anyways, everyone gets the right to bear arms, not just people in militias. Forget that first thing we said; it doesn't actually mean anything, we were just making conversation.

There is a reason the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." was put in the Bill of RIGHTS and not the part of the Constitution governing militias

Certainly. They included it in the bill of RIGHTS to ensure that members of well regulated militia have the RIGHT to bear arms -- even in their private homes -- to allow them to act as effective militiamen. Those guns don't have to be kept on a central armory or whatever -- the militiamen can keep them at their bedside if they want. The federal government cannot disarm state militias by limiting that right.

Isn't that at least a reasonable reading of the text? I don't see how you get past that "militia" clause without arguing that the framers were just babbling about something that really doesn't have any importance.

The idea is that in order to become a militiaman in the first place, you have to have a gun. Militias weren't permanent professional organizations at the time; they formed and dispersed as needed. You're suggesting that the right to bear arms was meant to be limited to professional career militiamen, but there was no such thing at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights. In order to form a militia, you need a preexisting pool of armed men.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the militia clause is a subordinate explanatory clause for the second. If they had meant to restrict the right to bear arms to standing militiamen, the main clause would probably say so rather than "the people".

You're suggesting that the right to bear arms was meant to be limited to professional career militiamen, but there was no such thing at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights.

I'm suggesting that the right to bear arms was meant to be limited to people who are part of a "well-regulated militia." I'm not suggesting that it was limited to "professional career militiamen" -- you're right that there was no such thing (after all, if you're a "professional, career" warrior to the exclusion of anything else, you're more appropriately described as being a member of a standing army).

But you could be a baker or a blacksmith or a farmer or a preacher or whatever else as your "day job" and still be a member of a "well-regulated militia" -- you don't have to be a professional fighter or make it your career. On the other hand, though, the very inclusion of the qualifier "well-regulated" implies some degree of order; it isn't as though the framers envisioned that everyone would just have a bunch of guns and someone would ring the town church bell and everyone would grab their muskets and clamor out into the town square to shoot some injuns. That would be a militia, I guess, under a loose definition, but I don't think anyone could plausibly argue that it's a "well-regulated" one. At the very least a "well-regulated militia" implies that you have to sign up to join before you're considered a member, no? I think it's also reasonable for a well-regulated militia to have some kind of regular drilling and code of conduct and time commitment (like the national guard's "One weekend a month, two weeks a year" thing). But shit, at the very least there must be an enlistment process; otherwise the militia doesn't even know who it's "well-regulating."

Isn't a reasonable reading of the amendment that, if you do enlist in a militia that qualifies as "well-regulated" (whatever that means), then you may bear arms so that you may effectively serve as a member of that militia? In no event may the federal government attempt to curtail the state's ability to arm its militia with weapons, but the amendment is limited to well-regulated militias.

If they had meant to restrict the right to bear arms to standing militiamen, the main clause would probably say so rather than "the people".

That's a fair point, but the counter-argument is "if they had meant to grant the right to bear arms to everyone, regardless of whether or not they were a member of a militia, they simply wouldn't have included the first clause specifically talking about militias." I've said this a few times around the thread, but none of the other amendments in the bill of rights have a "fluff" prefatory clause that gives a partial explanation as to why the right exists; they just cut to the chase and say what the right being protected is. That's how legislators draft laws and it's how lawyers/judges interpret them; you don't waste time and create confusion by writing asides that don't have any legal effect. Doing so is confusing, and it puts judges in position getting to pick and choose what parts of the statute the legislature really meant as opposed to the parts where they were just "riffing." More than half of the framers were lawyers, and they knew this. The rest of the amendments were concise and to the point without any preface. Why would this one be different than the others?

I would like to point out before I respond that this is the most delightfully civil debate I've ever seen on this sub.

Hey thanks brother, and likewise. I actually don't have a strong opinion on this issue one way or the other, but I am a lawyer and a civil litigator by trade, and I'm in the business of making arguments. ;)

I just think that the whole "well-regulated militia" thing is something that pro-gun folks kind of gloss over, and it's a fun sparring exercise to engage people with arguments they may not have considered before. I do think that it's a plausible reading, but your reading is, too, and of course a lot of very reasonable people agree with that, including the ones on the Supreme Court (and their opinion is ultimately the only one that matters).

But you could be a baker or a blacksmith or a farmer or a preacher or whatever else as your "day job" and still be a member of a "well-regulated militia" -- you don't have to be a professional fighter or make it your career. On the other hand, though, the very inclusion of the qualifier "well-regulated" implies some degree of order; it isn't as though the framers envisioned that everyone would just have a bunch of guns and someone would ring the town church bell and everyone would grab their muskets and clamor out into the town square to shoot some injuns. That would be a militia, I guess, under a loose definition, but I don't think anyone could plausibly argue that it's a "well-regulated" one. At the very least a "well-regulated militia" implies that you have to sign up to join before you're considered a member, no?

You're right that the term "well-regulated" is troublesome, like "cruel and unusual" or "reasonable doubt". But the language of militia conscription orders from the time suggests that the men being conscripted already owned firearms.

Able-bodied men in general were considered "potential militiamen" who could be expected to report with their own equipment if called upon. Prior to the moment of conscription, they weren't distinguished from the general population.

The Second Militia Act of 1792 purported to conscript every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company." The statute actually required everyone who received a notice of conscription into their local militia company to arm themselves so they could be called up for service if need be, although it gave them six months to do so (which indicates that the state militias didn't assume that those conscripted were necessarily armed to begin with). The militia companies created by the act appear to be "well-regulated" -- men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall. In essence, the Act appears to have provided for state-level analogues of the "national guard" -- with the power to institute a draft. You're conscripted into your state's militia, you have six months to arm yourself, and you're on the hook for two weeks a year for training (perhaps more if you're called up).

That's all very well, and the second amendment ensures the states that are creating these militias that the federal government can never attempt to "de-fang" them by demanding that they turn over their guns. In fact, I think the second amendment goes so far as to prohibit any law that would prevent newly-conscripted militia men from obtaining guns within the six-month period that the statute provides to arm themselves. As the amendment clearly states, well-regulated militias are important, and their members need to have access to arms to be effective.

I still don't see how the second amendment goes a step beyond that by protecting the rights of someone who is not a member of one of these well-regulated militias to own a gun, for all of the reasons I've said previously. It seems to me like the second amendment protects your right to bear arms when and if you ever find yourself in a militia, either by enlisting or being conscripted.

One illustration of the concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.

"Militias" were essentially large-scale posses formed and dispersed as needed, and all (white) men of fighting age were expected to contribute if called upon.

Also note that they were expected to provide their own firearms. I can't imagine how they could be expected to do that if they weren't allowed to own one prior to becoming a militiaman.

I wrote a response elsewhere in the thread that addressed this exact statute, so I'll paste it here for the sake of readability:

The Second Militia Act of 1792 purported to conscript every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company." The statute actually required everyone who received a notice of conscription into their local militia company to arm themselves so they could be called up for service if need be, although it gave them six months to do so (which indicates that the state militias didn't assume that those conscripted were necessarily armed to begin with). The militia companies created by the act appear to be "well-regulated" -- men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall. In essence, the Act appears to have provided for state-level analogues of the "national guard" -- with the power to institute a draft. You're conscripted into your state's militia, you have six months to arm yourself, and you're on the hook for two weeks a year for training (perhaps more if you're called up).

That's all very well, and the second amendment ensures the states that are creating these militias that the federal government can never attempt to "de-fang" them by demanding that they turn over their guns. In fact, I think the second amendment goes so far as to prohibit any law that would prevent newly-conscripted militia men from obtaining guns within the six-month period that the statute provides to arm themselves. As the amendment clearly states, well-regulated militias are important, and their members need to have access to arms to be effective.

I still don't see how the second amendment goes a step beyond that by protecting the rights of someone who is not a member of one of these well-regulated militias to own a gun, for all of the reasons I've said previously. It seems to me like the second amendment protects your right to bear arms when and if you ever find yourself in a militia, either by enlisting or being conscripted.

They included the part about the militia because they were explaining one of the reasons for the second part. We still have state militias today.

They included the part about the militia because they were explaining one of the reasons for the second part.

Why do you think so? As I've said, none of the other amendments in the bill of rights have a preface like that. They're all just plain legal statements; there's no "introduction" where the legislature explains why they think the right is important. For example, the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Boom. It starts right out of the gate with "Congress shall make no law respecting," and then they give a list. They didn't start by giving a reason or two why freedom of speech is important before getting to the point.

There's a good reason why the drafters were so concise. One of the "canons of construction" (i.e. one of the rules of thumb that courts use for interpreting legal documents) is that if the drafters include language in a statute/contract/written constitution/whatever, they included that language for a reason and they intended it to have some kind of practical effect; they're not just filling the page with words that aren't intended to have any legal impact. It's called the "Rule Against Surplusage," and it's covered pretty well starting on page 16 of this PDF: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf.

The rule makes sense -- it's confusing if legislators write laws where some parts of them have legal meaning and others are just "fluff" that you can kind of disregard (and, perhaps more importantly, do we really courts applying a statute to be able to ignore parts of it by concluding "Eh, I'm sure they didn't really mean that part?") Writing laws is serious business, and the courts assume that the legislature means what it says when it writes them. This principle is nearly as old as written laws themselves, and it had been around long before the Constitution was written.

More than half of the drafters of the Constitution were lawyers, and they knew how written laws are interpreted. All of the rest of the amendments reflect that expertise; they're concise and to the point. But for this one amendment, though, the draftsmen apparently decided to just make a "by-the-way" statement about militias to explain one of the reasons why they're allowing everybody (not just militias) to bear arms, even though they didn't do that anywhere else in the Bill of Rights and most of them were lawyers who should knew better than to be careless like that.

That just doesn't make any sense, man. It's more likely that the framers included the language about militias because the Second Amendment was intended to be limited to members of a militia; there's just no reason to mention them otherwise.

Here is a very good article on it [Scalia’s reasoning is fairly easy to understand. That is, simply saying why a right is necessary to protect before claiming that it is a right does not obviate the existence of the right once that reason ceases to be in effect.

For instance, one can imagine the founders drafting the First Amendment’s protection of “freedom of the press” in order to protect the distribution of anonymously authored pamphlets, or to allow people to use privately purchased printing presses. Yet if the first amendment were phrased, “A robust distribution of political pamphlets being necessary to the maintenance of a free society, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” would anyone seriously argue that such a right would not cover laser printing or online news organizations? Certainly, Justice Scalia (who has found that the first amendment covers things the founders never could have imagined, such as video games) would not accept such an interpretation.](http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/19/does-the-second-amendment-only-apply-to-state-militias-liberals-are-making-the-case-but-we-look-at-the-evidence/)

The definition of, "militia" has changed over the last 225 years.

First, bear in mind that we're talking about a "well-regulated militia." Has the definition of that term meaningfully changed?

If so, according to whom? And how do you define it?

I'll have to find the article.

I can't wait to read it.

Shall not be infringed.

The Garand is far more accurate, has nearly double the range, is nearly impossible to jam and its round has far more stopping power when compared to a stock Ar-15. Granted the ar15 has nearly infinite customization properties, but when comparing apples to apples and in the hands of an even marginally skilled pyscho, the Garand is more than capable of making alot of families very, very sad.

The .30-06/7.62 round has much more stopping power and with specialized ammo can kill people out to something like 800 meters. The 5.56 is a crap shoot past 200 meters, really, apart from headshots. The criticism of the 5.56 is that low weight (55, 62 or 67 grain, it really doens't matter), hardball ammunition just zips through people without being big enough to make a wound that will stop them. The U.S. has never won a war since switching to 5.56/.223 rounds. If it wanted a compromise it should have went to .270.

They are police actions please... Rah rah rah Jew led military industrial complex. Goyim fighting in Jew proxy wars. Where's paulshadow35?

First of all the 30.06 and 7.62x54 are two completely different rounds, and as for your reasoning that the US hasn't won a war because of the 5.56 is laughable.

Also that "The 5.56 is a crap shoot past 200 meters" is also complete bullshit.

7.62X69 is the NATO designation for .30-06, 7.62X54 is the NATO designation for .308. "Completely different" my ass.

5.56/.223 rounds don't even stop people when they take multiple chest shots in close range combat. This was shown again and again and again in Vietnam, the first Gulf War, Somalia, and the overall Global War on Terror. Why do you think 6.5 and 6.8 ammo is getting more popular and widely used? Because the 5.56 doesn't have enough umph to get the job done.

Shitty 5.56 ammo is a big reason why we're losing. The 5.56 doesn't put a guy down with 2 chest shots at 50 feet, so using it past 200 meters is stupid.

When some one refers to a round as 7.62 they are almost never talking about a 30.06.

You saying "The 5.56 is a crap shoot past 200 meters", is the main thing I argue with. Im able to hit a man size target way out past 200 yards easily, what velocity is lost from a 55 grain 5.56 round at 200 yards, when compared to muzzle velocity?

Sure, you can can hit it, the problem is that you're using a round that was originally sold to the general public as a varmint round, fit for things like raccoons, fox and coyote and not a man-sized target. Speaking of man sized targets, you can't even hunt deer with .223 and 5.56 ammo in most U.S. states. There is no reason to not step up to a 6.5 or a 6.8 style bullet, like a 6.5 Grendel. You are superior in muzzle energy and foot-pounds of energy all across the board with comparable drop and you get it all in a package that is than 10 ft-lbs of recoil even with bullets weighing 123 and 140 grains, easily manageable. Quit falling in love with FPS, you silly goose! :)

Here is a chart comparing 77 grain 5.56 to other rounds. http://sixty-six.org/x_drive/G1Ballistics.pdf You're giving up probably up something like 1000 ft-lbs of energy at 200 yards. I wouldn't even shoot at deer with a .223. For self defense and military use it stinks.

The guy did constantly ask impossible questions over and over and refuse to acknowledge criminals don't obey laws

Oh shit, criminals don't obey the law? Might as well not have any in the first place.

Even when the faggot made the lame remark about "Hitler's Genocidal Program"? Sorry no he didn't Roland1232

[deleted]

Musket...

7.62X69 is the NATO designation for .30-06, 7.62X54 is the NATO designation for .308. "Completely different" my ass.

5.56/.223 rounds don't even stop people when they take multiple chest shots in close range combat. This was shown again and again and again in Vietnam, the first Gulf War, Somalia, and the overall Global War on Terror. Why do you think 6.5 and 6.8 ammo is getting more popular and widely used? Because the 5.56 doesn't have enough umph to get the job done.

Shitty 5.56 ammo is a big reason why we're losing. The 5.56 doesn't put a guy down with 2 chest shots at 50 feet, so using it past 200 meters is stupid.

I agree completely and I live in Australia where most guns are banned. There are still certain guns you're able to own but you're pretty much forced to keep it in a safe, so if you're into home security, you basically have to learn to fight multiple people at once or keep a variety of knives around the house and hope for the best.

I agree. I meant that he got points that could have been countered,